First Time Open Comb/Old Type

[Ray-Vigo]

I picked up a Brownie Old Type recently on B/S/T (the fellow I dealt with was very prompt and courteous). The razor head really was in nice shape, though the handle a bit dingy. A clean up and polishing helped it out quite a bit. It came with some PAL Hollow Ground carbon steel blades. I left them in the wrapping with the case as part of the set.

The handle has two cracks-- one at each end of the knurled grip portion. I'm not sure how why they tend to get cracked like this. Does anyone know if these sorts of cracks are damaging structurally or if they just sit there?

I loaded the razor with a Derby blade. I tightened it down snugly, trying to get the blade tight without damaging the razor. Is there any wisdom as to how tight these have to be?

The blade sat pretty tight to the comb, though the gap in the middle was the smallest bit bigger than at the ends. I chalked this up to manufacturing tolerances, age and a thinner blade than original. I didn't bother with a shim.

What I noticed is that the razor is very sensitive to blade angle-- more so than my other razors. It seems to like a steep angle-- almost vertical with the top of the head on the skin. The comb versus safety bar seems to make a big difference in the feel. I originally figured it was mostly the same, but in reality it feels different. It almost feels as if there is no comb or bar and that you're working just the blade itself.

The results were mixed for the first night. I burned my upper lip because I rashly assumed I could use this one the way I've done with my 30s Tech. I'll have to change my approach to that area a little bit. The easier bits like the cheeks and neck went very well. With the proper blade angle it really gets a close shave going in those areas. It also seemed smoother on those areas than the Tech-- the Tech pulls just a tiny bit. This may be due to the safety bar wiping away more of the lather than the comb.

Overall I like the potential this thing has. I'm not sure why the handles on these crack-- every example I've seen has at least one crack. Is this something to worry about, or is it more a condition/appearance issue than a functional one? I would describe these as a little bigger than hairlines, but they're not big, long splits either.

Also, I don't see a Serial # on the lower plate. Is that an indicator of the date?

 

[drewmac]

The blade sat pretty tight to the comb, though the gap in the middle was the smallest bit bigger than at the ends. I chalked this up to manufacturing tolerances, age and a thinner blade than original.

Welcome to the open comb world! I have been trying to get an answer to this same issue from the other old type users to no avail (i.e. do other's old types exhibit this same blade bend).

To answer your handle crack questions, Gillette basically did not make the handle properly and nearly all have developed what are essentially stress cracks. If your cracks get worse to the point of the end caps falling out I would suggest using epoxy to affix the ball and head ends to the barrel. I, or someone else can post pictures describing the method for you.

 

[BBrad]

The lack of serial number on a Pocket Edition (or Brownie) Old Type indicates manufacture after the New Improved models came out in 1921. Gillette continued to make OT razors as their "low priced" line through the '20s.

There was a recent thread addressing the gap issue you have on yours. I believe after completely tightening the assembly the gap was gone - your handle could be just a few degrees loose yet.

The handle crack is caused from the manufacturing method - they took a tube section and pressed the upper collar and lower ball ends into the tube. The metal couldn't take the stress and would develop a characteristic crack. I have seen the crack from a barely visible hairline all the way to a full-blown split from stem to stern! Once an end has actually come lose, they can be repaired with marine epoxy. Some have also silver-soldered them back together as well.

The Old Type is quite a razor - I agree that the shave angle is a bit fussier than more modern designs . . . but in its day it was "The Best a Man Can Get" for sure!

 

[Maul555]

Welcome to the open comb world! I have been trying to get an answer to this same issue from the other old type users to no avail (i.e. do other's old types exhibit this same blade bend).

Mine has no blade bend at all. it is straight all the way across on both sides. There was a post about this a few days ago here. The blade bend may also be why your razor seems to like such a steep angle.

 

[drewmac]

There was a recent thread addressing the gap issue you have on yours. I believe after completely tightening the assembly the gap was gone - your handle could be just a few degrees loose yet.

That was my thread. Tightening the handle did help, but it was an extreme amount of tightening; more than I would care to on a daily basis. If other users could check their olds when tightened and post results, it would be very helpful.

 

[Ray-Vigo]

Thanks for the insights. I had assumed the cracked handle was a function of overtightening by the user-- but the manufacturing process explains why and where the two cracks I'm seeing formed. They're each maybe 1/4- 1/2 inch long. One is a mere hairline, the other a little wider. Nothing in the handle seems loose so far though.

The head itself is in pretty pristine shape-- full plating and no corrosion or bends, breaks etc. It's a shame about the way they made the handles.

As for the year-- that sounds right to me. I did some more research later and found a similar year given for the end of serial #s for the Old Types. I would estimate 1920s to be a good guess for this one; not sure we can get much closer.

The bowed blade to me is just barely detectable with the naked eye. I only found it by doing a very close examination. I saw that earlier thread and was curious if mine had it too. I wonder if maybe a top shim would help-- what if you made a shim from an old blade but instead of putting it on the bottom to raise the blade from the comb, you put it on top to lock the blade down. Would this change how it shaves? This is just speculation on my part: an idea. I frankly don't want this razor any more aggressive than it already is, at least for now. My 30s Tech is the early pattern, which is not as mild as the later ones, but this is a good notch more aggressive.

 

[Maul555]

I wonder if maybe a top shim would help-- what if you made a shim from an old blade but instead of putting it on the bottom to raise the blade from the comb, you put it on top to lock the blade down. Would this change how it shaves? This is just speculation on my part: an idea. I frankly don't want this razor any more aggressive than it already is, at least for now. My 30s Tech is the early pattern, which is not as mild as the later ones, but this is a good notch more aggressive.

If you did that, you would have to cut off the cutting edges of the shim blade if your putting it on top of the cutting blade, otherwise you could be shaving with the dull shim.

 

[Ray-Vigo]

If you did that, you would have to cut off the cutting edges of the shim blade if your putting it on top of the cutting blade, otherwise you could be shaving with the dull shim.

Exactly-- just use the core of the blade. I have no clue if that works.

 

[Maul555]

Exactly-- just use the core of the blade. I have no clue if that works.

Me neither, give it a try and report back

 

[Ray-Vigo]

This razor is capable of some pretty close shaves. That said, it left me burned after the last time. It seems to be fairly picky as to blade angle and pressure. It was not particularly prone to producing cuts, but it did produce burn much easier than either my 30s Tech or 40s Superspeed. So on the plus side it produces noticeably closer shaves, but on the minus side it produces a fair bit more irritation for me. It seems a mixed bag so far.

 

[Buck Melanoma]

I am a big fan of the old type.

Mine is straight across, with no bowing. It is also a very, very easy and smooth shave.

Perhaps yours was dropped.

Fortunately they are not rare or expensive.

 

[Ray-Vigo]

I am a big fan of the old type.

Mine is straight across, with no bowing. It is also a very, very easy and smooth shave.

Perhaps yours was dropped.

Fortunately they are not rare or expensive.

It looks to me like the head was never dropped-- no signs of any damage that I can see. It could be a blade angle issue on my part certainly. I've been using my Tech for about 8 months now, so I may be fudging the blade angle a bit on the tough spots. My skin is somewhat prone to irritation too. I think I'll be mixing the Old up with the Tech a bit. I may well be keeping both razors loaded and ready and then choosing between the two each day. I really do like each for its own good characteristics. What is also interesting is that the blade gap on the Tech is bigger than on the Old Type (no shim), but the Old Type feels much more aggressive than the Tech. Perhaps this aggression is more a function of blade exposure and an open comb than just the gap. I've long equated gap with aggression, but that may be a mistake. Perhaps true aggression is a more complicated combination of gap, safety bar/comb buffer size and open vs closed.

I will also add that the quality of manufacturing on each seems excellent. I can't see Mach 3 or Fusion handles going 70+ years (in the case of the Tech) or 80+ years (in the case of the Old Type) in such good order.

 

[BBrad]

If other users could check their olds when tightened and post results, it would be very helpful.

Well . . . interesting!!

I just took three Old Types that I have in the parts bin . . . two '20s era Brownies and a 1918 Pocket Edition (SN H-826487) and mounted the same blade (Super Blue, '50s vintage used) in each one.

Both Brownies were fine, but there was what looked to be a gap below the center teeth on the 1918! I clipped my loupe to my glasses and grabbed the feeler gauge . . . yes, there is about a .011 increase to the gap at mid-comb!!

It looked to me that the blade was bowing up, rather than the comb teeth being bent down. I mounted the blade with the 1918 cap on a Brownie guard. This produced a similar gap, but not as pronounced.

I then used a Brownie cap on the 1918 guard - no gap! This brief and limited test sampling points to the cap as the culprit, with the guard plate having the ability to exacerbate the problem.

Just for fun, I mounted an old used three-hole original style Gillette blade, which is thicker than the Super Blue. On the 1918, the three-hole had just the slightest evidence of a gap, with no gap on the other two razors.

Finally, I mounted each blade in a 1911 Single-Ring Standard - blade edge flat as can be with no gap showing.

So . . . is it a tolerance issue? Do certain caps develop a bow which flexes the blade up? What effect does the guard have in modifying the bow? Also, is this an issue that only affects Pocket Edition and Brownie razors and not Standards?

Kind of a shame regarding the 1918 - the plating is great on the cap and guard - the handle is MIA. I was going to invest in a Cooncatbob handle and put that one in the rotation . . .

I am curious what others have found . . .

 

[Ray-Vigo]

I tried the top shim idea mentioned above, but it didn't help the gap difference. It seems to me that it's a combination of manufacturing tolerances and the flexibility of thinner, modern blades compared to the old thick style. The thinner blades are more flexible, so they seem to conform more to the shape of the surrounding pieces. With a thicker blade, I don't see that happening as much because they don't conform and bend as easily. Perhaps it was something that was an acceptable tolerance using the old blades, but that the new ones require a tighter tolerance due to their flex.

 

[mjclark]

I have two old type clones, one of which is shockingly aggressive and the other is mild and easy:



The brass one on the left weighs in at 44g. It's very (in my limited experience) aggressive, has a large blade exposure and gap and seems to require the very steep blade angle that the OP talks about. It looks like a clone of the original type 102 so I'm wondering, after reading this thread, whether it was actually designed for the thicker original blades.
The chromed one on the right weighs in at 55g and looks like a clone of the thicker-headed type 102a and it gives an easy mild shave
I was surprised at the marked difference in aggressiveness between two such superficially similar razors but it's really helped me get my head round the concept of razor aggression and (after a couple of nasty nicks with the brass one) the importance of good technique!